Donohue v. Corning, 2008 WL 2477427 (Del. Ch., June 20, 2008), read opinion here.This is the second  Chancery Court opinion released on the same day by the same vice chancellor on the issue of advancement rights. This is one of several decisions on advancement rights within the last week or so from the Chancery Court.

 The procedural setting of this case was a motion for partial summary judgment, which the court observed, has become trite to note, is a particularly appropriate manner to address advancement issues. See footnote 6.

This case involved a contest for control of an LLC and the advancement issue was decided based on an interpretation of the advancement provisions in the LLC agreement–which the court viewed as only requiring advancement when the covered party was responding to, or defending against a claim or suit.  Thus, the advancement provision at issue did not cover the suit filed by the claimant in this case. However, the court acknowledged other Delaware cases, not involving similar contract provisions, that allowed for indemnification, for example, in connection with suits initiated by a covered person in connection with their duties to the corporation. See footnotes 14 to 17, citing Shearin v. E.F. Button Group, Inc., 652 A.2d 578, 594, Allen, C. (Del. Ch. 1994).